Federal Court Orders Redetermination of Financial Sufficiency in Immigration Case

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260617 Docket: IMM-16979-24 Citation: 2026 FC 816 Ottawa, Ontario, June 17, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicants are a family. The principal applicant is [APPELLANT]. Ms. [APPELLANT] applied for a study permit to study in Canada. Ms. [APPELLANT]’s husband and four minor children applied for accompanying permits. An officer at [NAME] ( “the Officer” ) refused their applications. The Applicants challenge these decisions on judicial review. [ 2 ] The Officer was not satisfied that Ms. [APPELLANT] had sufficient funds to pay tuition, travel costs, and maintain herself and her family for her period of intended study. The Officer refused the [NAME], Ms. [APPELLANT]’s spouse and her four minor children, on the basis that they are inadmissible to Canada as accompanying family members of an inadmissible person under paragraph 42(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c.

27. In the record before me there is no evidence that the Officer made a finding that Ms. [APPELLANT] is inadmissible. [ 3 ] The Respondent concedes that the finding that the [NAME] are inadmissible is unreasonable and must be set aside. However, the Respondent argues that only the [NAME]’ matters ought to be sent back for redetermination, despite their applications being tied to the success of Ms. [APPELLANT]’s study permit application. The Respondent argues that the refusal of Ms. [APPELLANT]’s study permit for insufficient funds was reasonable and should be upheld on judicial review. [ 4 ] It is unclear to me whether it would be appropriate to sever the files in the way the Respondent suggests given the interdependent nature of the applications – particularly that the inadmissibility finding against the [NAME] is based on having an inadmissible family member. It is unnecessary for me to decide this issue because I find the Officer’s determination on sufficiency of funds unreasonable. [ 5 ] The Officer’s decision on the sufficiency of the Applicants’ funds lacks transparency and justification. The Officer did not explain how they reached this conclusion based on the evidence and submissions before them. The Officer’s reasoning on this point is limited to the following: “Funds are marginal in that the declared amount is nearly exactly what is required for a family of 5 where one is a student. This does not include the amount of tuition.” [ 6 ] The Applicants understood that their declared funds were more than sufficient to meet the financial requirements. In their application, the Applicants outlined the amounts they understood were required for their stay and explained how they had more than sufficient funds to cover these amounts, including the tuition. The Applicants’ view was that they had nearly twice the required amount of funds. In order to find that the Applicants only had the required amounts to support themselves, without including the tuition costs, the Officer had to reject the Applicants’ calculations in some way. The problem is that it is not clear on what basis the Officer rejected the Applicants’ calculations. The Officer’s reasons are not responsive to the Applicants’ submissions and do not adequately justify their conclusion. This is a sufficient basis on which to send the Applicants’ decisions back for redetermination. [ 7 ] Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-16979-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is allowed; The Applicants’ decisions dated July 11, 2024 are all set aside and are sent back to be redetermined by a different decision-maker; and No serious question of general importance is certified. Blank "Lobat Sadrehashemi" Blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-16979-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] ET AL v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 15, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J DATED: JUNE 17, 2026 APPEARANCE : [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent